1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

408 measly lines of resolution

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by snocrash, Dec 9, 2003.

  1. snocrash

    snocrash
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    When we watch a PAL DVD movie in 2.35:1 we're only viewing
    436 horizontal lines of (actual movie picture) resolution. (more specifically: 720x436)

    Isn't it amazing how good it looks even though the resolution is so crap!

    Imagine trying to go back to good ol' 640 x 480 windows desktop!! and then blowing it up 100 inches on your wall
     
  2. Garrett

    Garrett
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    31,381
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    The best thief you’ll never see.
    Ratings:
    +4,019
    The resolution should be the same on a 2.35:1 disc as a 16:9 disc. Not unless the film is non anamorphic and you are having to expand the picture.

    Oh and the resolution on a monitor is more sharper than on a TV, so the TV blurs or rounds the shape edges off. I saw a plasma high resolution TV at a resent show and they put a DVD on and it looked blocky.
     
  3. LV426

    LV426
    Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    12,753
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Somewhere in South Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +4,907
    Not true. What snocrash said was that the number of lines of (actual movie picture) is 408. I haven't checked his arithmetic, but it seems about right. The remaining (say) 168 lines contain no (actual movie picture).
     
  4. Garrett

    Garrett
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    31,381
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    The best thief you’ll never see.
    Ratings:
    +4,019
    nigel you miss read me I’m not saying the number of lines are the same in the two different areas of the film, but the resolution should be the same.
     
  5. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    Garrett is right; the resolution is the same.

    It's not as if the 408 lines are spread over the entire height of the screen (unless you are having to zoom a non-anamorphic image). The picture displays exactly the same amount of lines as a 16:9 format image; it's just that on 2.35:1 ratio a number of those lines are always showing solid black.

    The 408 lines are concentrated on the visible image, so will be no different in resolution from a 16:9 aspect ratio movie.
     
  6. snocrash

    snocrash
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    My point was:
    On a 2.35:1 movie on a PAL DVD the actual movie picture is _resolved_ over 436 horizontal lines (that's where the word resolution comes from). When I say "movie picture", I'm referring to that part of the visible pixel array which contains meaningful information.

    Suffice to say, the essence of the statement was solely to illustrate how such a low number of horizontal lines still is classed as high-quality or at least acceptable enjoyable viewing.
     
  7. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    Yes but the resolution over 408 lines is no greater or less than the 500+ lines used by a 16:9 image.

    Your original statement might just as well have read:

    "When we watch a PAL DVD movie in 16:9 we're only viewing
    560 horizontal lines of (actual movie picture) resolution. (more specifically: 720x560)

    Isn't it amazing how good it looks even though the resolution is so crap!"

    Screen resolution refers to how clearly the screen resolves the image, not to how many lines it resolves it over. If it is using only part of the screen to display the picture, the resolution is no different than if it is using all of the screen to display the picture.

    Also you are getting a tad confused in how you measure screen resolution.

    A regular TV image is composed of lines whereas a digital display uses pixels. You cannot mix the two as you have tried to. 720x408 as you refer to it is meaningless. The TV display is measured in lines 625, 525, 1050, etc. The number of lines is not multiplied by anything. Your 408 refers to lines so the 720 you multiply it by is meaningless. PAL screen resolution is 625 lines. It is not refered to as 625 lines times whatever.

    The only time a multiplication factor comes in is when refering to a digital display such as a PC monitor. It is not measured in lines but in pixels or dots. 640 x 480 as you refer to the old Windows desktop is 640 pixels x 480 pixels. No lines invoved.
     
  8. snocrash

    snocrash
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    Some of you people have completely taken this statement way off topic !

    PAL DVD encoded with a 2.35:1 anamorphic movie only has 720 x 436 pixels of meaningful information available for display - end of story.

    I've not mentioned broadcast standards, TV's, different types of displays -- so they're irrelevant.

    Point being: It's impressive how a movie, when composed of a pixel grid of only 720 by 436 , is able to look as good as it does - thats the essence of the conversation - and the facts haven't changed.
     
  9. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    EDITED POST

    :rolleyes: I should not read posts at 2am when I have been awake for 20 hours. Have re-read this this afternoon. Can see what you were getting at now Snocrash. Your mention of lines with pixels (which brought to mind TVs/monitors, etc.) threw me on a different track. Apologies matey!

    I am a fool :eek:
     
  10. snocrash

    snocrash
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    My maths was out by a tad -- it's actually 436 not 408

    Still doesn't change a few things...

    PAL DVD is encoded at 720 pixels across by 576 pixels high. That's just a plain fact.

    When a PAL DVD contains a 2.35:1 anamorphic movie, the movie is only contains 720 pixels across by 436 pixels high. Plain fact again. Any other residual picture in on the disc is data not information .. as it has no meaningful representation in the sense of the movie.
     
  11. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,804
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +520
    I have to say, I think garret and the_pauley are arguing from the wrong perspective, here. When an anamorphic 2.35:1 PAL DVD is made, the original images which make up frames of the original film each have to be scaled to a resolution of 720x436. Those 720x436 images are then bulked up by adding 70 lines of black pixels to the top and bottom before put onto the disc. So the actual film frames occupy a region that is 720x436 pixels.

    Scarily if you do the same calculation for an NTSC disc, you get 720x363.
     
  12. snocrash

    snocrash
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    My point exactly... It just goes to show how well the human brain accepts something so technically poor.
     
  13. figrin_dan

    figrin_dan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,991
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +135
    I think the problem is, you used DVD and crap in the same thread on this forum. Talk about digging your own hole!
     
  14. puddleduck

    puddleduck
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,814
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Lake District, near as dammit
    Ratings:
    +50
    My point exactly... It just goes to show how well the human brain accepts something so technically poor.

    Totally agree - DVD should **not** look as good as it does - especially when projected on an 8 foot wide screen!
     

Share This Page

Loading...